Meeting minutes
TDM Protocol
liisamk: the TDM conversation will extend in january because key persons are missing today, they sent a regrets. But we would like to ask who uses TDM protocol.
liisamk: I start, PRH started use TDM protocole. ,We put opt out in epub files and look for possibilities to add it to ONIX.
ivan: do you have any feedback about those who collect data?
liisamk: content has been mined before, we don't know wich proportion.
liisamk: but no direct feedback that they care about the TDM.
liisamk: EU language is vague, but clearly states that if the statement exist it should be respected.
<liisamk> https://
gautierchomel: at a conference last week, a speaker mentioned that they controlled and found that the TDM protocole on their webpage was respected by chatGPT. To be confirmed and I'll try to find a clearer reference.
George: if this machine readable statement are respected, will they be standardised and should we add it to the epub next charter ?
ivan: Yes, it should be standardised, to be strong enought. I don't think it is a subject for epub WG because TDM goes way beyond digital publishing.
George: as a follow up we will have to reference it in the epub spec.
ivan: it could be in a year, a year and a half.
joshuaTallent: there's an obvious value to have something in the OPF and in the ONIX.
gautierchomel: in Europe wehear a lot about TDM rep protocol, it is adopted by biggest publishers and recommended by distributors.
liisamk: I see TDM rep easy to adopt technically
liisamk: I think other protocoles proposed are complex to implement. That's probably the reason why we don't see them used.
ivan: actual TDM rep protocol is very restrictive, if set up it allows no use. This is the kind of issue a specification should address.
ivan: I agree the simplicity of TDM Rep favors adoption, we should not make it more complex.
Leslie: we clarify through contracts when we have commercial relations. Per example with Kobo.
liisamk: UK PA is also pushing for adoption
liisamk: both in EPUB and ONIX
Leslie: I would like to have a clarification. Should we double with human readable statement ?
liisamk: yes, I would say both machine and human readable are better
ivan: i don't think TDM rep adresses the human readable part. As it is very simple, deriving a human redable sentence should be feasible easily but i don't know the plans.
tzviya: i have concerns about disconnection between publishers' practices and reading system usage of it.
liisamk: it's to be defined within a contract between commercial partners.
<ivan> For the minutes: the current TDM specification is at https://
liisamk: so conversation to be continued when key persons are able to join. Also to mention there is a talk today in Brussels around those questions. Hopefully we'll have more details in the next month.
ivan: TDM rep is a framework, it is not supposed to adress every protection use cases. There are other vocabularies for other problems problems. We should be carreful to not overload TDM Rep with all our protection problems.
liisamk: Next subject is about DRM and accessibility
DRM and A11y
liisamk: it has been pushed by some actors that DRM is not accessible and should be removed to guarantee accessibility. This is not true.
George: I read applebook, vitalsource books, redshelf books without problem. The DRM they place limits me to their applications. I cannot read outside of theire applications but it is not an accessibility problem...
… we have walked a lot since DRM was denying content extraction for assistive technologies. It is not a problem today
gautierchomel: just to mention that LCP is now working on at least two braille displays. So yes the problem is more about interoperability than accessibility and we are making progress.
Leslie: I guess this came from Germany. I would like to have official statements to refer to.
liisamk: we have many examples of working situations.
tzviya: that may come from legislation mentioning DRM. It is about interpreting the law.
George: if you rely on an old DRM solution, it will not be accessible. It's a legacy and it's a problem... The other point is interoperability that can cause hurdle because changing application raises problems. It's a bigger problem for people relying on assistive technologies.
TomShawver: i implemented DRM that were problematic, that was on publishers' request. We are ready to do better, but we are driven by what publishers ask for.
liisamk: it is probably a messaging issue, we should be able to better communicate that DRM itself is not the problem. It's about which and how it is used.
gautierchomel: https://
George: I'm happy to do what ever can help. As a person. That's not a WAI or a DAISY statement.
gautierchomel: also to mention that sometime publishers are not aware that their collections are available under an interoperable accessibility friendly DRM.
Charter
ivan: we have to find a third co chair...
… one issue is what to add for visual narratives and the possibility to combine what is today FXL with webtoon needs. The other big thing is to add portable annotation system. We don't know yet if it will be in the c ore document or a separate one. There are also several small things that we will be able to adress.
ivan: goal is to have a review cycle by end of january.
liisamk: next meeting january 21th to follow up
<ivan> Charter proposal: http://